ninth-report.pdf

Independent Monitoring Team Ninth Status Report of the Independent Monitor Delphine Allen, et al., v. City of Oakland, et al. May 13, 2006, to November 30, 2006 Page 23 process, the IAD Commander and Sergeant in charge of integrity testing report that they also intend to start analyzing a comprehensive list of all member/employee complaints to look for patterns. Task 3.2 requires IAD to conduct its integrity tests in accordance with the frequency standards and other parameters IAD has established. OPD is in compliance with Task 3.2. Internal Affairs Policy & Procedure 05-01, published in December 2005, sets forth the general frequency standards and other parameters for integrity testing. The policy outlines two categories of integrity tests: planned integrity tests and selective integrity tests. Planned integrity tests are random in nature, not targeting any particular individual but used to verify compliance with Departmental policies and procedures. Since the policy was implemented in December 2005, IAD has conducted two planned integrity tests, one focusing on the receipt and processing of complaints by IAD intake officers and one focusing on whether members or employees were engaging in prohibited retaliation. In addition, the Department continues to conduct monthly drivers’ license and warrant checks of members and employees and has initiated administrative investigations as a result of such checks. Selective integrity tests are targeted enforcement tools aimed at addressing specific issues regarding identified members, employees, or units. Since the policy was implemented in December 2005, IAD has conducted one such test. The tests required by Task 3.1, discussed above, are an example of selective integrity tests. However, as discussed above, OPD has not yet established the selection criteria for such tests. The IMT reviewed the three integrity tests (two planned and one selective) that have been conducted since the implementation of the policy.7 We evaluated whether these tests were conducted in accordance with the standards set forth in the policy. In general, IAD did a good job complying with these standards, including creating operations plans when required and preparing after-action reports discussing training and policy issues and recommendations for addressing any identified failures in policies, procedures, and/or systems. Although OPD is not yet in full compliance with Task 3, the IMT was impressed by the commitment of IAD staff and by its decision to conduct particular tests for the express purpose of detecting retaliatory conduct. IAD has identified a number of resource deficiencies that prevent it from developing successful integrity testing. Based on our review of the tests conducted, we agree with IAD’s assessment. For example, IAD does not have access to its own surveillance equipment (e.g., video and audio recording equipment, GPS tracking devices, binoculars, etc.), covert currency, covert vehicles, or a secure communications channel. As a result, whenever IAD undertakes an integrity test requiring such resources, it must obtain them from other Departmental units. 7 In addition to these integrity tests, OPD conducted three integrity tests before completing its integrity testing policy. The IMT reviewed these tests as well but did not consider them for purposes of making compliance determinations.